-29v. The arrest of the accused 116. The Court notes that, although the accused was not placed at the disposal of the Office of the Prosecutor by the Army during the first stage of the investigation of the incident, it was alleged without challenge that, in September 1994, he was being investigated by a military court in the military prison of Rimac. The proceedings were later closed from September 1995 to January 2003 and, as a result, the accused was released. The Court notes that, after the reopening, beginning in 2003 the authorities carried out various procedures in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2008 in relation to the arrest warrants for Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo (supra paras. 75 to 78).121 The evidence does not show that the warrants were deficient, but it does show that, as of June 20, 2008, the accused was under the custody of the State, although the record does not indicate when he was apprehended. 117. The Court notes that the authorities had the obligation to deploy the necessary means to locate Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo in order that he be brought to trial. Nonetheless, the Court recalls that such an obligation is one of means or of conduct and cannot be seen as a failure to comply for the mere fact that it did not produce a result.122 Consequently, the Court holds that it was not proved that the conduct of the authorities related to the arrest of the accused had an impact on the reasonable time of the criminal proceedings. vi. The length of time to pay the reparations 118. With respect to the payment of reparations ordered on the domestic level, it is noted that on July 23, 2008, the National Criminal Chamber ruled against the accused. On April 27, 2009, the petitioners requested that the judge order the payment of civil redress by the Peruvian Army that had been ordered to jointly pay the reparation. On August 5, 2009, the judge requested the payment by the Army and, on January 6, 2011, more than two years after the judgment, the full payment of the reparations to the beneficiaries was finalized. 119. Regarding the State’s argument that there was no delay in complying with the payment of civil redress since that payment was subject to the procedures established in the budgetary law, the Court holds, as it has in other cases concerning Peru, that budgetary regulations may not be used to justify a delay of many years to comply with judgments.123 120. Therefore, the Court rules that the time that it took the State to pay civil redress, a part of the criminal proceedings that were delayed more than two years, violated the principle of a reasonable time. vii. Conclusion ` It is noted that in 2003 and 2005 a domestic court extended the period of committal proceedings for various procedures, including to locate and arrest the accused. In 2007, the National Criminal Chamber ordered the same, asking the Office of the Division of Warrants of the National Police of Peru and the National Office of Elections (ONPE) to account for his migratory movements and whether he had voted in the last elections and to the Judicial Police that it present a report on the procedures and actions taken to locate and arrest the accused. It is noted that at least the first two reports were presented that same year. In 2008, the arrest warrant was repeated. That same year the Judicial Police informed that it had not been possible to locate or arrest the accused and that it was continuing the relevant procedures. The State indicated that on June 26, 2008, the National Criminal Chamber set a date to open the oral trial once the Secretariat of the Mesa de Partes informed that the accused was being held in the Penitentiary of Lurigancho. 121 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177 and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183. 122 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, para. 75. 123